There’s an inherent problem with the A.I. Rule that Shades has put in place to prevent MG 2.0 spamming threads with A.I. generated content that he portrays, dishonestly, as if it’s his own words. It’s that Shades has allowed for A.I. generated content”factual” content to be used - the example Shades gave was of a scripture.
Let me give a different example to show the problem/loop hole. Let’s say there’s a thread discussing the chances of the teams that remain in the Club World Cup soccer tournament. A poster asks A.I. to provide an answer to a prompt about the odds of each team finishing in the top four, which he then posts to the thread as if it’s his own words and portrays it as the odds of each team finishing first. Because he’s posted the response as “factual content” it doesn’t breach the board rule. But other posters cannot easily verify the information, cannot verify the source of the information, and cannot differentiate between what the poster has said, and what A.I. has said.
If that same poster were to do the same exercise using Google, copying and pasting the same information, but this time putting the pasted section into a quote box, and providing a link to the source, it becomes easily verifiable that the poster is engaged in sleight of hand.
The board rule suits MG because he’s lazy, and he doesn’t want his information, the source of that information, and the context of that information, easily checked.
Continually expecting MG to do the right thing and manage himself, after so many examples of where he has promised to do so and then immediately shown he has no intention of doing so, is a fool’s errand.
Everyone else very quickly adapted to and began to follow the A.I. rule, except for mg. It's just not possible he really didn't understand, after several explanations from Shades, that 'A.I. generated content' included 'A.I. generated content in list form,' or that 'A.I. generated content' included 'A.I. generated content that you pretend you wrote'.
The only explanation left is that he violated a very simple rule, on purpose and repeatedly, across multiple threads, with the express intent of disrupting the board.
There’s an inherent problem with the A.I. Rule that Shades has put in place to prevent MG 2.0 spamming threads with A.I. generated content that he portrays, dishonestly, as if it’s his own words. It’s that Shades has allowed for A.I. generated content”factual” content to be used - the example Shades gave was of a scripture.
Let me give a different example to show the problem/loop hole. Let’s say there’s a thread discussing the chances of the teams that remain in the Club World Cup soccer tournament. A poster asks A.I. to provide an answer to a prompt about the odds of each team finishing in the top four, which he then posts to the thread as if it’s his own words and portrays it as the odds of each team finishing first. Because he’s posted the response as “factual content” it doesn’t breach the board rule. But other posters cannot easily verify the information, cannot verify the source of the information, and cannot differentiate between what the poster has said, and what A.I. has said.
If that same poster were to do the same exercise using Google, copying and pasting the same information, but this time putting the pasted section into a quote box, and providing a link to the source, it becomes easily verifiable that the poster is engaged in sleight of hand.
The board rule suits MG because he’s lazy, and he doesn’t want his information, the source of that information, and the context of that information, easily checked.
Continually expecting MG to do the right thing and manage himself, after so many examples of where he has promised to do so and then immediately shown he has no intention of doing so, is a fool’s errand.
Everyone else very quickly adapted to and began to follow the A.I. rule, except for mg. It's just not possible he really didn't understand, after several explanations from Shades, that 'A.I. generated content' included 'A.I. generated content in list form,' or that 'A.I. generated content' included 'A.I. generated content that you pretend you wrote'.
The only explanation left is that he violated a very simple rule, on purpose and repeatedly, across multiple threads, with the express intent of disrupting the board.
If I seriously thought that MG was unable to "learn and adjust to this new age of A.I." to this extent, I would ask board members to cut him some slack. But in my opinion he's clearly of above average intelligence, and not suffering from cognitive issues. Even without assuming intent, I'm at a loss to see his behaviour as anything other than deliberate.
Also in my opinion, an appeal to "this new age of A.I." seems a bit pathetic.
ETA, from my favourite poet:
piet hein wrote:It's not very pretty in pitiful fashion to angle for pity: it merits compassion.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
